Phase-3 Randomized Controlled Trials on Exclusion of Participants With Kidney Disease in COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Chewcharat A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7577277 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivePost-randomisation exclusions in randomised controlled trials are common and may include participants identified as not meeting trial eligibility criteria after randomisation. We report how a decision might be reached and reported on, to include or exclude these participants. We illustrate using a motivating scenario from the BREATHE trial (Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02426112) evaluating azithromycin for the treatment of chronic lung disease in people aged 6-19 years with HIV in Zimbabwe and Malawi.Key pointsIncluding all enrolled and randomised participants in the primary analysis of a trial ensures an unbiased estimate of the intervention effect using intention-to-treat principles, and minimises the effects of confounding through balanced allocation to trial arm. Ineligible participants are sometimes enrolled, due to measurement or human error. Of 347 participants enrolled into the BREATHE trial, 11 (3.2%) were subsequently found to be ineligible based on lung function criteria. We assumed no safety risk of azithromycin treatment; their inclusion in the trial and subsequent analysis of the intervention effect therefore mirrors clinical practice. Senior trial investigators considered diurnal variations in the measurement of lung function, advantages of retaining a higher sample size and advice from the Data Safety and Monitoring Board and Trial Steering Committee, and decided to include these participants in primary analysis. We planned and reported analyses including and excluding these participants, and in our case the interpretation of treatment effect was consistent.ConclusionThe decision, by senior investigators, on whether to exclude enrolled participants, should reflect issues of safety, treatment efficacy, statistical power and measurement error. As long as decisions are made prior to finalising the statistical analysis plan for the trial, the risk of exclusions creating bias should be minimal. The decision taken should be transparently reported and a sensitivity analysis can present the opposite decision.
| S-EPMC7713189 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7508503 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Several vaccines have been approved for the prevention of COVID-19. However, no head-to-head trials comparing their clinical efficacy have been performed. This network meta-analysis aims to identify those, among the competing existing vaccines, conferring the maximum protection against COVID-19. A literature search was done in Medline (via PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library databases for phase 3 randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of different COVID-19 vaccines. Search results were screened and eligible studies were included to perform a network meta-analysis in software 'R' version 4.1.2 using a random effect model. Cochrane's 'Risk of Bias tool (RoB2)' was used for quality assessment. Raw data from the included studies was used for network meta-analysis. Assessment of inconsistency was not possible as no study compared two or more vaccines directly. A forest plot for indirect comparison of various COVID-19 vaccines was obtained. Rankogram and 'P' scores were obtained to rank the vaccines based on the indirect evidence of their comparative efficacy. A total of 17 randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of 16 COVID-19 vaccines, were included in the network meta-analysis. A total of 361,386 participants was included in this network meta-analysis. Overall risk of bias among included studies was of 'some concern'. All the COVID-19 vaccines had a statistically significant reduction of risk for contracting symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 in comparison to the placebo, however, the maximum protection (RR 0.05) was with BNT126b2. The indirect comparison also revealed BNT126b2 vaccine confers the highest protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in comparison to all others included, with a 'P' score of 0.9771 followed by mRNA-1273, rAD26 & rAD5 and NVX-CoV2373. The evidence generated from this network meta-analysis indicates the good efficacy of all the included vaccines in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 as compared to placebo. The BNT126b2 vaccine was found to provide the highest protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 among all included followed by mRNA-1273, rAD26 & rAD5, NVX-CoV2373 and others.
| S-EPMC9640819 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8733489 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) altered the logistics of ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The need to reduce in-person research and clinical activities, however, presented an additional level of complexity in order to continue conducting RCTs that focused on the development of medications for Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD). The visits required a systematic objective evaluation from the physician and mental health professional and clinical staff, as many of the safety and efficacy assessments are self-reported. The following commentary addresses the successes and limitations our RCTs encountered during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
| S-EPMC7832637 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Delaying disease progression and reducing the risk of mortality are key goals in the treatment of chronic kidney disease (CKD). New drug classes to augment renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors as the standard of care have scarcely met their primary endpoints until recently. This systematic literature review explored treatments evaluated in patients with CKD since 1990 to understand what contemporary data add to the treatment landscape. Eighty-nine clinical trials were identified that had enrolled patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate 13.9-102.8 mL/min/1.73 m2 and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) 29.9-2911.0 mg/g, with (75.5%) and without (20.6%) type 2 diabetes (T2D). Clinically objective outcomes of kidney failure and all-cause mortality (ACM) were reported in 32 and 64 trials, respectively. Significant reductions (P < 0.05) in the risk of kidney failure were observed in seven trials: five small trials published before 2008 had evaluated the RAAS inhibitors losartan, benazepril, or ramipril in patients with (n = 751) or without (n = 84-436) T2D; two larger trials (n = 2152-2202) published onwards of 2019 had evaluated the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors canagliflozin (in patients with T2D and UACR > 300-5000 mg/g) and dapagliflozin (in patients with or without T2D and UACR 200-5000 mg/g) added to a background of RAAS inhibition. Significant reductions in ACM were observed with dapagliflozin in the DAPA-CKD trial. Contemporary data therefore suggest that augmenting RAAS inhibitors with new drug classes has the potential to improve clinical outcomes in a broad range of patients with CKD.
| S-EPMC8799552 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAs the global epidemic continues to spread, countries have tapped effective drugs to treat new coronavirus pneumonia. The therapeutic effect of the traditional Chinese medicine Lianhua Qingwen in this new coronary pneumonia epidemic has attracted attention from all walks of life, and relevant research reports continue to appear. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of the clinical efficacy and safety of the traditional Chinese medicine Lianhua Qingwen in the treatment of new coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19) (referred to as "new coronary pneumonia"), and evaluated the overall level of research quality.MethodsWe searched seven databases and retrieved the Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CNKI), Vip Database (VIP), China Biomedicine (SinoMed), Wanfang Database and PubMed, Cochrane Central, EMBASE from October 2019 to May 2020 Literature references. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that tested the efficacy of the traditional Chinese medicine lotus clearing plague in the treatment of new coronavirus pneumonia. The authors extracted data and independently assessed quality. We used Stata15.1 software to analyze the data of randomized trials.ResultsA total of 2 articles were identified, including 154 patients. All the participating patients were diagnosed with new coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19). The meta-analysis results showed that the disappearance rate of the main clinical symptoms of Chinese medicine Lianhua Qingwen in the treatment of new coronavirus pneumonia was significantly higher than that of the control group [OR = 3.34, 95% CI (2.06, 5.44), P <0.001]; the disappearance rate of other clinical secondary symptoms is significantly higher than the control group [OR = 6.54, 95% CI (3.59, 11.90), P <0.001]. The duration of fever was significantly lower than that of the control group [OR = -1.04, 95% CI (-1.60, -0.49), P <0.001]. It is confirmed that the traditional Chinese medicine Lianhua Qingwen treatment improves the clinical effectiveness, and also has certain advantages in relieving cough and fever.ConclusionThe treatment of new pneumonia with traditional Chinese medicine lotus clearing plague can be used as an effective therapy to improve the clinical symptoms of new coronary pneumonia. More rigorous design, multi-center, and prospective RCTs are necessary to further determine the effectiveness and safety of the traditional Chinese medicine lotus decoction in the treatment of new pneumonia.
| S-EPMC7485773 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough the US government approved hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) for hospitalized coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) patients, some studies denied efficacy of HCQ and CQ. We aimed to evaluate HCQ/CQ treatment for COVID-19.MethodsFive databases were searched on April 15, 2020, without publication date restriction. We followed both Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement reporting recommendations. A random-model meta-analysis was conducted to pool odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR). The quality of evidence for each outcome and the final recommendation was assessed using the GRADE guidelines of the American College of Chest Physicians.ResultsWe identified four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and four observational studies with 2,063 COVID-19 cases. All-cause mortality was not affected by the administration of HCQ/CQ [OR: 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53-2.09, P=0.89]. No improvement of viral clearance was found neither by time-to-event analysis (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.74-1.94, P=0.47) nor frequency on day 7 (OR: 1.47, 95% CI: 0.33-6.63, P=0.62). HCQ/CQ treatment increased the risk of the any adverse event with OR of 3.56 (95% CI: 1.62-7.83, P=0.002).ConclusionsHCQ/CQ failed to decrease the all-cause mortality (very low quality evidence) and did not improve viral clearance (low or very low quality evidence) but increased the risk of any adverse event (moderate quality evidence). Routine administration of HCQ/CQ for COVID-19 patients is not recommended (weak recommendation, Grade 2C).
| S-EPMC7867802 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients with kidney disease (KD) are at increased risk for cerebrovascular disease (CVD) and CVD patients with KD have worse outcomes. We aimed to determine the representation of KD patients in major randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CVD interventions. We searched MEDLINE for reports of major CVD trials published through February 9, 2017. We excluded trials that did not report mortality outcomes, enrolled fewer than 100 participants, or were subgroup, follow-up, or post-hoc analyses. Two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction. We included 135 RCTs randomizing 194,977 participants. KD patients were excluded in 48 (35.6%) trials, but were less likely to be excluded from trials of class I/II recommended interventions (n = 7; 15.9%; p = 0.001) and more likely to be excluded in trials with registered protocols (45.5% vs. 22.4%; p = 0.007). Exclusion was lower in trials supported by academic or governmental grants compared to industry or combined funding (21.2% vs. 42.0% and 47.8%; p = 0.033 and 0.028, respectively). Among trials excluding KD patients, 24 (50.0%) used serum creatinine, 7 (14.6%) used estimated glomerular filtration rate or creatinine clearance, 7 (14.6%) used renal replacement therapy, and 19 (39.6%) used non-specific kidney-related criteria. Only 4 (3.0%) trials reported baseline renal function. No trials prespecified or reported subgroup analyses by baseline renal function. Although 19 (14.1%) trials reported the incidence of acute kidney injury, no trial examined adverse event rates according to renal function. In summary, more than one third of major CVD trials excluded patients with KD, primarily based on serum creatinine or non-specific criteria, and outcomes were not stratified by renal parameters. Therefore, purposeful efforts to increase inclusion of KD patients in CVD trials and evaluate the impact of renal function on efficacy and safety are needed to improve the quality of evidence for interventions in this vulnerable population.
| S-EPMC5398672 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7393781 | biostudies-literature